Germany Considers Fining Facebook $522,000 Per Fake News Item (heatst.com)

"The government of Germany is considering imposing a legal regime that would allow fining social networks such as Facebook up to 500,000 euros ($522,000) for each day the platform leaves a 'fake news' story up without deleting it," according to a story shared by schwit1. PC Magazine has more details: The law would reportedly apply to other social networks as well. "If after the relevant checks Facebook does not immediately, within 24 hours, delete the offending post then [it] must reckon with severe penalties of up to 500,000 euros," Germany's parliamentary chief of the Social Democrat party Thomas Oppermann said in an interview with Germany's Der Spiegel magazine, according to a report from Heat Street. Under the law, "official and private complainants" would be able to flag news on Facebook as fake, Heat Street reported. Facebook and other affected social networks would have to create "in-country offices focused on responding to takedown demands," the report says. The bill, slated for consideration next year, is said to have bipartisan support. According to the article, "Lawmakers in the country are reportedly hoping it will prevent Russia from interfering in Germany's elections next year."

Comments

The real problem

[Ol Olsoc]

Is using Facebook for news. I can easily make up some splashy name and start crapping out bogus articles all day long. And the credulity of facebook users is such that no matter what I post, it will be followed.

It's interesting, but you will do better to assume that any "news" item you read on Facebook is just a lie.

But how would you get rid of the problem? Facebook is up against the same problem that took down Usenet - the tragedy of the commons. NPR and BBC are treated with the same weight as Joe Blow cranking out crap and conspiracies just for the lulz in his basement.

I wouldn't be surprised if readership is falling. After I had to open a FB account last year, it looked interesting for about a week, then it became an annoyance, now it seems to be troll land.

And as quickly as fake news is deleted, new ones will pop up, and will make note of being deleted, which will feed into conspiracies.

The future does not look so bright for Facebook as they will probably suffer the same fate as usenet.

Re:The real problem

[Cmdln Daco]

The future does not look so good for the News Business, but the people will still wonder, and someone will keep telling them stories.

Re:The real problem

[BlueStrat]

Is using Facebook for news.

I think the real problem is that, at least in the US, the government has spent the last 60-80 years dumbing-down the populace so the government could convince them of most anything, only to have others taking advantage of their gullibility as well, throwing a wrench into their Orwellian Newspeak/MiniTruth schemes.

Strat

Re:The real problem

[fustakrakich]

No, the real 'problem' is that people are weird...

Re:The real problem

[AmiMoJo]

There doesn't seem to be any burden placed on Facebook to detect fake news, only to check reports and remove it within 24 hours.

Seems quite reasonable.

Re:The real problem

[fustakrakich]

:-) Happy New Year!

Re:The real problem

[zifn4b]

Facebook is up against the same problem that took down Usenet - the tragedy of the commons

So basically what you're saying is the human condition is responsible for the stupid shit that human beings do. That's like stating the obvious and there is no amount of government regulation, religion or anything else that we know of that will solve the problem and create a perfect utopia. We have the entire history of the human race as evidence. I'm tired of hearing people bitching and complaining about things they can't control and then try to scapegoat it on someone or something. Life isn't perfect but it's the only life you get! Get busy living it instead of wasting it!

Re:The real problem

[Rick Schumann]

The future does not look so bright for Facebook as they will probably suffer the same fate as usenet.

Sounds like a positive outcome to me. The world would be better off without the cancer that is Facebook.

Re:The real problem

[HornWumpus]

No. Facebook keeps all of 'them' in one place where they can be ignored as a group.

Can you imagine how much worse the rest of the net would be if all those morons were jumping up and down going 'look at me, look at me' everywhere but facebook?

Re:The real problem

[Ol Olsoc]

I had to open a FB account last year

You had to open a FB account? Please tell us who pressured you to, or why.

BTW, I have never had a FB account, and probably never will.

It was for some competitive radio/electronic activities that I'm in charge of, that went to social media instead of the old school message reflector. So Once I got there, my family and other friends found me, then some old GF's. And it was off to the races.

Re:The real problem

[Ol Olsoc]

There doesn't seem to be any burden placed on Facebook to detect fake news, only to check reports and remove it within 24 hours.

Seems quite reasonable.

But wouldn't they have to confirm it is actually fake? Some things are obvious, some, not so much. And is satire like the Onion allowed?

As well, we can see in here that everything gets called fake news. That's why I'm saying that Facebook is screwed, and will head the way of usenet.

Re:The real problem

[Ol Olsoc]

So basically what you're saying is the human condition is responsible for the stupid shit that human beings do. That's like stating the obvious and there is no amount of government regulation, religion or anything else that we know of that will solve the problem and create a perfect utopia.

Since when am I saying there is some utopia? All systems have problems. But Facebook is just a classic example of how if something is wide open, the trolls come in and destroy it.

It is why humans need some rules and guidelines. Its why occasionally the children need a time out.

We have the entire history of the human race as evidence. I'm tired of hearing people bitching and complaining about things they can't control and then try to scapegoat it on someone or something. Life isn't perfect but it's the only life you get! Get busy living it instead of wasting it!

Well - that's inspiring,and all - but I don't know what it has to do with the issue at hand.

Re:The real problem

[AmiMoJo]

"Fake news" isn't just incorrect stuff posted by otherwise reputable news outlets, it's made up stuff deliberately designed to mislead. I don't think it would be too hard to detect, especially since these days the more reputable sites tend to debunk it fairly quickly.

Re:The real problem

[Rick Schumann]

I just checked, and approximately half of the citizens of the United States are on Facebook; who is this 'they' that you speak of, then? Damned near a simple majority of everyone in the U.S.? Numbers grew quickly and seemingly out-of-control? No end in sight? Keeps mutating? Sounds like cancer to me. Can we get some chemo up in this thing, please?

Can you imagine how much worse the rest of the net would be if all those morons were jumping up and down going 'look at me, look at me' everywhere but facebook?

It would look like the late 1990's to early 2000's'; they'd all have blogs, or personal web pages. Do you remember those? Or are you too young to know about them? As-is I imagine they'd go infest places like Reddit or Huffington Post or similar.. or maybe they'd all go back to LiveJournal.

If you're looking at Facebook as a 'containment unit' for the attention-seeking, then you're not seeing the problem: The Cancer that is Facebook keeps growing and mutating, and it's cannibalizing it's userbase to use as both fuel and building materials, like any self-respecting cancer does. The difference between an actual cancer and Facebook, though, is that while a cancer may kill it's host when it grows beyond a certain limit, Facebook will, if it's growth continues, supplant the organism itself.

Re:The real problem

[zifn4b]

Well - that's inspiring,and all - but I don't know what it has to do with the issue at hand.

Not surprised it flew over your head. It means your expectations have no evidence to substantiate they can even exist in reality. If you find that's the case, all time and energy spent pursuing unobtainable conditions or things, is WASTE. However, you're free to waste your life as you see fit.

Re:The real problem

[Maritz]

BTW, I have never had a FB account, and probably never will.

I'm surprised people still want props for that. Nobody fucking cares mate, sorry.

Re:The real problem

[Maritz]

Numbers grew quickly and seemingly out-of-control? No end in sight? Keeps mutating? Sounds like cancer to me. Can we get some chemo up in this thing, please?

Talk about stretching an analogy to breaking point and beyond. Facebook is a fucking web site. Human beings are not animal cells.

Re:The real problem

[Ol Olsoc]

Well - that's inspiring,and all - but I don't know what it has to do with the issue at hand.

Not surprised it flew over your head. It means your expectations have no evidence to substantiate they can even exist in reality. If you find that's the case, all time and energy spent pursuing unobtainable conditions or things, is WASTE. However, you're free to waste your life as you see fit.

So what are my expectations, exactly? You're still having a little trouble making yourself clear. The tragedy of the commons, which is what I was writing about, is not some back of the envelope wild-assed guess. It's a well known phenomenon that occurs in a common area with little to no entrance requirement. It is also an old concept, first described in the 1800's. But with unfettered access, the guy who wants to talk about his psychosexual hangups and ridicuale intelligent conversation has the same weight as the world renowned expert in something. The world renowned expert has better things to do than argue with the guy, so he or she goes away. The guy with the projection and behavioral issues wins. The whole group loses.

This is exactly what happened to Usenet, it is exactly what is happening to Facebook right now. The proof is out there, but you'll need to do a little google-fu, maybe hit the books a little.

But then, I kinda suspect that you are more like the person who just wants to fuck with people. Thanks for playing!

Re:The real problem

[david_thornley]

While it's fairly easy to go through alleged news items and pick out many that are legitimate (if possibly mistaken) and many that are fake, it's not possible to classify all alleged news items. It's entirely possible for the MSM as a whole to unite in a claim that turns out to be false, and entirely possible for an individual or small organization to stumble on an overlooked significant truth.

So, I want to know what the criteria are and whether they'll lean to claiming that some legit news is fake or claiming that some fake news is legit.

Re:Ah, I get the definition

[Z80a]

Pizzagate is a mess made out of a lot of weird real shit mixed in with shit Alex Jones would doubt.

Re: Ah, I get the definition

[Anonymous Coward]

Who knows. Your handlers certainly saw to it that news was buried quickly, "fake" or not.

Speaking of fake news, can anybody prove a specific news story was fake and had a measurable effect on election results, with data to back that up? No takers?

Is "fake" news only what some acolyte Democrat can tortuously show is not 100% accurate, or does it also include unfalsifiable, unsubstantiated Democrat talking points which they never bother to attempt to justify?

Would that include WaPo stories?

[denis.goddard]

As noted by Glenn Greenwald, WaPo posted fake news last week

Re:Would that include WaPo stories?

[Anonymous Coward]

Fake news? Hardly. If you actually read the article, that's not what Greenwald himself is claiming. From the article:

Since it is so often distorted, permit me once again to underscore my own view on the broader Russia issue: Of course it is possible that Russia is responsible for these hacks, as this is perfectly consistent with (and far more mild than) what both Russia and the U.S. have done repeatedly for decades.

False news gets reported all the time, just as false scientific results get published all the time through the fallibility of human judgment. If you raise the standard of truth too high, nothing will ever be published. At least good publishers of journalism, like good scientists, correct the record when errors are found.

Re:Would that include WaPo stories?

[Xenographic]

WaPo is effectively an arm of the DNC at this point. It's to the point where the DNC can add donors to their private parties with a wink and a nod, despite the DNC's own lawyers forbidding them to add the party to the donor price sheets.

Re:Merkel....

[wonkey_monkey]

The tennis guy?

Fake News Includes:

[DatbeDank]

Anything that makes Merkel and her disasterous policies look bad. Will facebook remove the reports of NYE sexual assaults too as fake news?

Re:Fake News Includes:

[elrous0]

Anything that makes Merkel and her disasterous policies look bad.

This, a thousand times this. The difference between "fake news" and "real news worthy of further investigation" is all in who gets to define it, of course.

A story entitled "Watergate Hotel Break-in Has Possible Ties to Nixon White House" would have been called "fake news" by most people in 1972 (and certainly by Nixon himself).

Re:Fake News Includes:

[angel'o'sphere]

Merkels politics is not bad.

I did not vote for her as she is in "the wrong party". But what she does is the "right thing".

And unlike other politicians she has a PH.D in Physics, and is not a fucking lawyer or "retired" school teacher.

Re: Fake News Includes:

[cyber-vandal]

What blood would that be?

Re:Fake News Includes:

[djinn6]

And someone else could've also done the "right thing" without calling her opponents racists and neo-Nazis, or trying to silence them.

The choices are not just "kill the refugees" and "open border with Syria". With a bit of thought and rational policy making, she can save the refugees without endangering Germany or the EU. Her policy has every country in the EU struggling to support the influx, to the detriment of their own citizens. Brexit is the first, but if this keeps going, more will leave.

And you know what the worst part is? I don't think she's doing this just out of the goodness of her heart. She's doing it to provide cheap labor to her party's backers.

Re:Fake News Includes:

[angel'o'sphere]

The immigrants have no work permit.
Germany has in most areas minimum wage laws.

So goes your idea about cheap labor, facepalm.

Re:Fake News Includes:

[djinn6]

The immigrants have no work permit.

I don't live in Germany, but from what I can find online, they only have to wait 3 months until they get a limited work permit, and 15 months before a regular permit.

Germany has in most areas minimum wage laws.

The minimum wage is 1473 Euros a month, or 9.2 an hour. This does not cover a majority of the people*, and it's not so high that you'd live very comfortably earning just that.

So in a little over a year, you'll get a ton of competition for minimum wage jobs, and people earning more than the minimum will see their income fall. Unless you already earn minimum wage and you never want to change jobs, having so much competition is not going to be good for you economically.

* I couldn't find exact data, but from what I did find, the minimum wage covers a bit more than 25% of the people, and significantly less than 50%.

Re:Fake News Includes:

[angel'o'sphere]

people earning more than the minimum will see their income fall.
Why would that be the case? Enlighten me. Do you really think a minimum wage job is replacing a high skilled and high payed regular job?

* I couldn't find exact data, but from what I did find, the minimum wage covers a bit more than 25% of the people, and significantly less than 50%.
By law perhaps. The rest is covered by trade unions and their agreements with companies/the industry.

The minimum wage is 1473 Euros a month, or 9.2 an hour. This does not cover a majority of the people*, and it's not so high that you'd live very comfortably earning just that.
In comparison to other countries you can live comfortable enough. Especially if you consider that you can get social aid on top of it (which actually only shows sadly that the minimum wages are to low).

Re:Fake News Includes:

[djinn6]

people earning more than the minimum will see their income fall. Why would that be the case? Enlighten me. Do you really think a minimum wage job is replacing a high skilled and high payed regular job?

2 reasons: First, not every immigrant is unskilled. Some of them will be competing for high-end jobs. Second, the labor market is not fully differentiated. A man working for minimum wage is not that much less capable from a man working for 12 Euros / hour. If there's a huge influx, businesses will be able to find someone willing do the 12 Euros / hour job for minimum wage. When all those people who used to earn 12 Euros / hour goes to look for work, businesses will happily accept the best of them for what should have been a 15 Euro / hour job, and pay them 12 Euros / hour instead. So on and so forth...

* I couldn't find exact data, but from what I did find, the minimum wage covers a bit more than 25% of the people, and significantly less than 50%. By law perhaps. The rest is covered by trade unions and their agreements with companies/the industry.

In the long run, unions still have to respect market forces. At some point, they will have to negotiate wages with the company. They would have less leverage if the company can find a ton of non-unionized workers to replace them. Even if the unions somehow gets their way all the time, eventually someone will start a non-unionized company with all of the extra labor, and be more competitive than the unionized company, driving it out of business.

Re:Fake News Includes:

[angel'o'sphere]

We are here in Europe, not the USA.

To fire one who works for 12â an hour you need a reason. So in practice you can only replace him with a 9,25â worker if the previous worker quits his job.

In the long run, unions still have to respect market forces.
In an highly regulated market those forces are quite weak ;D

Even if the unions somehow gets their way all the time, eventually someone will start a non-unionized company with all of the extra labor, and be more competitive than the unionized company, driving it out of business. In an economics 101 book. In a world where economics are run by that book, yes.

However in real life this is not going to happen. It is more likely that the influx of foreign workers is stimulating the economy and that bottom line the competition for workers will raise their wages.

The refugees cause much server problems than shifts on the markets regarding wages, e.g. housing.

Re:Fake News Includes:

[elrous0]

LOL, all I can say is that you are VERY naive if you think Angela Merkel or any other politician gives a flying fuck about journalistic integrity. For Merkel, this is about one thing and one thing only: suppressing news stories that show her or her policies in a bad light.

Report on more immigrant rapes? That's fake news (no matter how many sources).

Report on how immigrants are helping the German economy? Oh, that's REAL news (even if the only source is a member of Merkel's cabinet).

Make no mistake about it, neither Merkel nor any other politician has any damned intention of applying the "fake news" label in a fair, consistent, or remotely unbiased manner. It's just a cudgel they want to use to suppress any news that makes them look bad.

Re:Fake News Includes:

[swillden]

Anything that makes Merkel and her disasterous policies look bad.

This, a thousand times this. The difference between "fake news" and "real news worthy of further investigation" is all in who gets to define it, of course.

A story entitled "Watergate Hotel Break-in Has Possible Ties to Nixon White House" would have been called "fake news" by most people in 1972 (and certainly by Nixon himself).

I think the source matters more than the content. Something apparently unbelievable from a random blogger or even an obscure "news organization" that was incorporated just last week might well get taken down as fake news... but if the same content is published by the New York Times, or Der Spiegel, and reputable investigative reporters are standing behind it as real news, then claims that it's fake are going to be tough to sell.

In the example you cite, with Woodward and Bernstein's names on the bylines and the articles published in the Washington Post, the story would have been broken and any government attempt to label it as fake news would have failed.

I'm far from certain this proposed law is a good idea, but ridiculous, thought-free reactions like yours and many others on this article really don't constitute a serious argument against it.

Re:Fake News Includes:

[Maritz]

Not being a lawyer, all by itself, is a fantastic thing in a politician. It means you have some chance, however remote, that they're not a fucking reptile. So it's quite sufficient on its own.

Re: Fake News Includes:

[Maritz]

She helped some refugees. Unforgivable. That's what he means by blood.

This could be fun

[cirby]

Most of the people whining about this seem to have no idea that the "fake news" they know about is only a fraction of the problem.

What's really funny is that about 90% of the things they like would fall under this umbrella, including a lot of content from the "real" media.

The "Russians Hacked the Election" story, for example...

The actual story is "the Russians hacked a couple of people at the Democratic Party (maybe) and embarrassed the hell out of them" - but the way it's being told, most of the Democrats you meet think there was actual nationwide vote tampering by Russian hacking. So far, the only vote tampering found was in Detroit, and it was done by hand, not by computer. Not to mention who won overwhelmingly in those precincts...

Re:This could be fun

[NotAPK]

"the Russians hacked a couple of people at the Democratic Party (maybe) and embarrassed the hell out of them"

And even this has not been substantiated to the public by the US intelligence agencies.

Re:This could be fun

[Wrath0fb0b]

The actual story is "the Russians hacked a couple of people at the Democratic Party (maybe) and embarrassed the hell out of them"

The actual actual story is that the Russians hacked some people at both parties, but selectively chose to release only a selection of the ones stolen from the Democratic party.

Re:This could be fun

[mean pun]

"the Russians hacked a couple of people at the Democratic Party (maybe) and embarrassed the hell out of them"

And even this has not been substantiated to the public by the US intelligence agencies.

Totally agree, I haven't seen any evidence that the Russians found anything really embarrassing.

Re:This could be fun

[AthanasiusKircher]

What's really funny is that about 90% of the things they like would fall under this umbrella, including a lot of content from the "real" media.

I really wish people would stop with this narrative, because it's a complete exaggeration and it's ignorant of the real problems for ACTUAL "fake news."

To be clear, I'm not claiming Germany's approach here is the right one, and there are people out there using "fake news" as an excuse to try to suppress legitimate content they don't agree with.

However, there is ALSO a TON of actual fake news. I don't mean mildly exaggerated news or somewhat misleading headlines that are cleared up when you read the full article. I don't mean articles that have a little bias in reporting or which choose to highlight some facts instead of others to slant in a particular way.

I'm talking about stories that assert demonstrably false facts to be true. Something like "X person did Y in city Z yesterday" when the person who wrote it knows that X doesn't exist and nobody did Y in Z.

Want an example of an ACTUAL "fake news" site? Here's one. The site tries to make itself look like CNN, but it has no affiliation with CNN. It's just a bunch of made-up nonsense. In this case, the author seems to be doing it as satire and to make money (something like a more subtle version of the Onion) -- and the author is actually rather disturbed by how often his stories get shared as if they were real news. (If you scroll down on that page, you'll actually see he has now included fake stories about how to spot fake crap on Facebook. Oh the irony.)

That site at least includes clues in most stories that make it clear that the stories are bogus if you bother reading beyond the first couple paragraphs. But many actual "fake news" outlets do no such thing -- they literally make step up with incendiary headlines because it will draw traffic.

Say what you will about the bias of mainstream media outlets -- which I completely agree are often biased in various ways -- but that's a very different thing from reporting detailed SPECIFIC FACTS that are KNOWN TO BE FALSE. Legitimate news sites that make factual errors make corrections and sometimes publish retractions. Fake news sites don't, because 99% of what they do is make up such facts.

Re:This could be fun

[LynnwoodRooster]

The actual story is "the Russians hacked a couple of people at the Democratic Party (maybe) and embarrassed the hell out of them"

The actual actual story is that the Russians hacked some people at both parties, but selectively chose to release only a selection of the ones stolen from the Democratic party.

You're spreading fake news. Your own source contradicts you: "An initial scan by POLITICO of the Republican-linked emails did not uncover any bombshell revelations". GOP e-mails were released, too - but there was nothing damning in it. Maybe, just maybe, the Democrats are dirtier than the GOP?

Re:This could be fun

[guruevi]

Trump is notorious for not using email because something could be tied back to him later on. I think plenty of Trumps escapades came out, CNN hacked a 15yo piece of tape that wasn't even part of any footage, just an accidental recording saved for over a decade for no good reason.

The thing is that neither camps' dirt did anything to persuade voters to either side. Clinton could've killed a puppy on Times Square and gotten no more or less votes.

Re:This could be fun

[bongey]

Legitimate news used to print retractions and pull down a bogus story when basic premise falls through. Instead now the story stays up for CLICK BAIT with a little tiny correction note usually at the very bottom , which many people won't even read. Rare they put a correction note at the beginning , but example the WaPo still has not changed their headline from their power grid story even though the entire premise is completely bogus. Only some anonymous sources and a democrat politicians are left for sources. If you believe that politicians tell the true all the time, there is no hope.

Re:This could be fun

[cirby]

ABC News and Rathergate. Fake news, through and through. Dan Rather still claims the story is true, even though everyone knows it's a fraud.

Dateline NBC and the exploding truck. They couldn't get the supposedly dangerous truck to catch fire, so they rigged it with an igniter for the camera. Yeah.

NBC News and George Zimmerman. They took his 911 call and edited it to make him sound like a bigot, when it showed nothing of the sort. Read up on it, and wonder how much of what you "know" about that case is actually true.

When the Ferguson shooting happened, a common slogan was created because Michael Brown supposedly said "hands up, don't shoot." The trouble is that only one person claimed to have heard him say that - his accomplice. The many actual witnesses heard nothing of the sort. Yet the mainstream news organizations ran with it, and the (much later) retractions have been, to say the least, understated.

There are dozens and dozens of such stories, with the big difference being that they're held up as "journalism" by millions, while the fake news you get from Facebook is usually only seen by thousands at most, and almost always has someone pointing out that it's faked in real time.

Well this seems simple enough

[OneoFamillion]

Of course this sort of jurisdiction could never be misused, or used as a political weapon to silence the opposition. True and fake being the binary value it is, this seems completely harmless, and totally healthy to me. A simple, elegant, final solution.

NYT is Fake News

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is Facebook the issue?

Yesterday, Washington Post ran a story that the Russians hacked our power grid. What happened was a laptop, not connected to the grid, owned by the power company had malware on it. It wasn't even a valid news event, but they reported the Russians did it. Fake News.

NYT a couple days after the election reported Trump had poisoned Meghan Kelly before the first debate. Their source was Mrs. Kelly. Every other news outlet rushed to her to get details and she said that never happened. Fake News.

So you have "real" news outlets literally making up fake news stories worse than you could find on Facebook, but you seem to only be worried about Facebook. The whole "fake news" thing came about because the NYT should be able to run any story they want without being questioned, but no one else should be allowed to run a story they don't want run. You even had CNN reporting that it was illegal for US citizens to read Wikileaks, and anything important in them CNN would let you know about.

Fake News isn't about Fake News. Fake News is about the news outlets no longer being able to lie and bury stories that go against their editorial narrative. They lost complete control and this is their attempt to take it back. Its just like when the MPAA tried to make recording DVDs illegal.

Re:NYT is Fake News

[Ol Olsoc]

Why is Facebook the issue?

Everyothing is the issue. What has happened is that the fake news people have succeeded too well, and a lot of people are simply not believing anything. I'll give it some veracity if BBC or NPR reports on it, but at this point assume that what I'm reading is a lie. That's what happens when you succeed too well.

Re:NYT is Fake News

[AthanasiusKircher]

Yesterday, Washington Post ran a story that the Russians hacked our power grid.

Yep, and now that story contains a correction at the top of the page. That's what legitimate news sites do when they make factual errors. Fake news sites don't issue corrections, because their entire purpose is to make up facts.

NYT a couple days after the election reported Trump had poisoned Meghan Kelly before the first debate. Their source was Mrs. Kelly. Every other news outlet rushed to her to get details and she said that never happened.

Actually, your timeline is a bit messed up. What actually happened was that New York Magazine reported in September that "Kelly had even begun to speculate, according to one Fox source, that Trump might have been responsible for her getting violently ill before the debate last summer. Could he have paid someone to slip something into her coffee that morning in Cleveland? she wondered to colleagues." This was NOT ignored in the media, but rather spread in September as a big rumor, which Kelly did NOT address or debunk at that time.

Then a couple months later when the New York Times published a book review, it talks about a passage where Kelly recounts the SAME weird story herself where a driver repeatedly insisted on giving her coffee and then rapidly became violently ill. Why exactly she reported that story in her book is unclear, but it seems to confirm that she did find the incident suspicious, as had already been reported in major media outlets two months earlier.

The NYT book review is NOT meant to be a solid piece of "factual journalism," but rather a playful dialogue with the book. Note the repeated "We report. You decide." quip in the review, which is meant to make fun of the Fox News slogan -- and in this case meant to signal a somewhat sarcastic rendering of this story from Kelly's book:

Ms. Kelly never says outright that someone tried to poison her. (A stomach bug was going around, she notes.) But the episode spooked her enough that she shared it later with Roger Ailes and a lawyer friend of his. Foul play? Again: She reports. You decide.

After this story becomes even more viral (no pun intended) than the September one did, Kelly steps in and tweets that it really was just a stomach bug. But why did she even tell the story in the first place in the book with her suspicion (of what?)?

At best, the book critic at the NYT could be accused of "reading between the lines" about a suspicious passage in the book and reporting an old story which had appeared elsewhere that had NOT been previously debunked by Kelly... and then making a playful "She reports. You decide." joke about it.

Seriously?? Those are the best examples of "fake news" in the mainstream media you can come up with?

This is an actual fake news site. It's made up of completely bogus articles, though it looks legit and the stories may sound vaguely legit if you only read the headline and first paragraph. But it's completely bogus, and most of the stories make that clear by becoming increasingly ridiculous when you read them.

YET a number of "articles" on that satirical site have been shared hundreds of thousands or even millions of times on Facebook as if they were real news. Are you seriously going to say that a corrected article in the WaPo and a quip that echoed a pre-existing st

Re:NYT is Fake News

[hyades1]

Your comment contains statements that simply are not true. As somebody who obviously has been suckered in by fake news, I would hope you'd educate yourself to the point where you understand that legitimate news outlets that get a story wrong correct their errors publicly. Fake news sites exist for no reason but to deceive.

Educate yourself, or at least have the common courtesy to STFU until you get your facts right.

Re: NYT is Fake News

[tepples]

Even for positions that don't involve maintaining the company's social media presence?

Re:NYT is Fake News

[AthanasiusKircher]

Geez, can you read? Look at the rest of the story. The WaPo story, in addition to a number of unnamed sources that express serious security concerns based on this incident, also has quotes from the governor of Vermont and a senator from Vermont implying that this could be have been a deliberate threat.

I agree with you that this SOUNDS much less dire than that quotes make it, but when you have various government security officials telling you it's serious and the most senior elected officials in Vermont implying that their information says it could have been a targeted hack, what exactly is the WaPo supposed to report? "We have quotes from numerous government officials that this may be a serious threat from Russian hackers, but we at the WaPo -- who don't have access to all the detailed security info here -- think all these government officials are talking BS"?

It seems like they're reporting on what they're being told by government officials, and the text of their correction seems in line with that. I agree it sounds overly inflammatory (based solely on the limited facts we know), and I'll happily join with you in condemning the WaPo for jumping the gun and reporting an active hack without enough evidence. But I also don't see much wrong with their correction based on the other information they report from what sources are telling them.

Re:NYT is Fake News

[Xenographic]

> Yep, and now that story contains a correction [washingtonpost.com] at the top of the page. That's what legitimate news sites do when they make factual errors. Fake news sites don't issue corrections, because their entire purpose is to make up facts.

That's great, but people don't check back on stories after they've read them. It's telling that they rush the story first and retract only when called on. The canonical "fake news" sites are Macedonian clickbait. It's not clear that anyone ever read or believed them, it's just taken as an article of faith that a lot of people clicked this, therefore they must believe it's true. If we apply the same logic to tabloids, apparently most of the country has long believed in Bat Boy.

> Actually, your timeline is a bit messed up. What actually happened was that New York Magazine reported in September [nymag.com] that "Kelly had even begun to speculate, according to one Fox source, that Trump might have been responsible for her getting violently ill before the debate last summer. Could he have paid someone to slip something into her coffee that morning in Cleveland? she wondered to colleagues." This was NOT ignored in the media, but rather spread in September as a big rumor, which Kelly did NOT address or debunk at that time.

It's not up to Megan Kelly to address or debunk this! This is what fact checkers were for (past tense because it seems like they're not using them any more...). Running a ridiculous rumor like that without contacting the alleged source is simply inexcusable for a supposedly reputable news agency.

The same goes for the CNN clip saying it's "illegal" to possess stolen documents so only the media can read Wikileaks. Some under-appreciated context here is that CNN's Chris Cuomo is a licensed attorney. So he has no excuse for not knowing how wrong that is.

Moving on to the point, here's the thing: you're trying to restrict what people can say on Facebook. If they can't say things on Facebook, they'll change platforms. You can't stop people from saying what they want and trying to is ignorant censorship by the German government.

Re:NYT is Fake News

[bongey]

The WaPo story STILL has the headline "Russian operation hacked a Vermont utility", which will be in every news feed. The PROPER and RESPONSIBLE news organization would RETRACT the ENTIRE STORY and PULL IT DOWN.

Re:NYT is Fake News

[bongey]

Quotes from DEMOCRATS that are trying to prop up the narrative that is was the Russians that caused Hillary to lose is just more WORTHLESS PROPAGANDA.

Re:NYT is Fake News

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep, and now that story contains a correction at the top of the page. That's what legitimate news sites do when they make factual errors.

The BBC published an article describing biased, allegedly misogynistic criticism of the new Ghostbusters movie, quoting as an example a post from Reddit. The Sydney Morning Herald ran an article on the same point, but their reporter took five minutes to do some actual journalism, looked up the Reddit poster's history, and found it was a fairly obvious false flag attack. The BBC responded by excising this part from a revised version of their article, without any sort of acknowledgement of the change, or the fact that they had been fooled (or, less generously, had tried to fool their readers).

Does this mean that the BBC is not a legitimate news site?

Re:NYT is Fake News

[LetterRip]

Yesterday, Washington Post ran a story that the Russians hacked our power grid. What happened was a laptop, not connected to the grid, owned by the power company had malware on it. It wasn't even a valid news event, but they reported the Russians did it. Fake News.

The way you hack a system that is off the internet (air gapped - as most of the hardware that is directly connected to major infrastructure such as refineries and power generation) is that you leave USB sticks with malware on them where a victim will find them.

The victim then goes 'hmm I wonder what is on this USB stick' - plugs it into the computer, and the malware you put on the USB stick is transferred to the laptop.

Then once the laptop is used by a technician on the air gapped hardware, the infrastructure gets infected.

They 'hacked the power company', which is what the story claimed, they simply were unable to bridge the air gap because someone caught the infection in time.

Since the malware bore the signature of Russian hackers, it wasn't a 'fake' news story, you were simply not well enough informed to understand what was going on.

Re:NYT is Fake News

[Anonymous Coward]

I find it hard to believe Russian paid trolls are bothering to post on Slashdot instead of somewhere more popular, but posts like the parent make it pretty hard to believe all the posts here are being made in good faith. I find it easy to believe that people really believe there's no Russian hacking going on at all; but the parent is just straight-up deflection accusing the GP of exactly the opposite of what they're doing. The GP is the one actually providing links and facts, and the parent is accusing them of relying only on emotion. I present some facts to refute that: actually read the thread.

Re:NYT is Fake News

[AmiMoJo]

The problem with that is that assuming evening is a lie leads to post-truth politics. Truth becomes irrelevant, facts are things you pick and choose to suit your established views. Then guys like Michael Gove and Donald Trump come along, telling you sweet lies and you figure that you might as well vote for them because when everything is a lie too your gut feeling is all that matters.

Re:NYT is Fake News

[djinn6]

The point is that the majority of people still believe MSM is unbiased, and now they're going to believe everything not found in MSM is fake news. But the reality is that they're squarely in the pockets of Democrats, and they're just as ready to parrot any unsubstantiated piece of inflammatory turd as those fake news sites. Oh sure, they'll issue a correction later, after a day or two, when 98% of people had already saw and shared the wrong version. How many people do you think are sharing the correction?

Right now the entire MSM is harping about Russians hacking the election, one and half months after the election itself, with no evidence they did the hacking. But guess what? Even if the Russians hacked the DNC, even if they had dirt on the GOP and didn't release them, nobody can defend Clinton for being a corrupt, lying scumbag. Face it, Clinton lost the election. It sucks, but it's not a traumatic event. There's no need to go through the 5 stages of grief. Especially when you're the MSM and you're supposed to be unbiased. This is absolutely disgusting even to a liberal like me.

This "fake news" fine is going to be used for one thing and one thing only: censorship. Next time you hear about people being raped and killed in Germany, it'll be "disenfranchised youths" rather than Muslim terrorists posing as refugees. Oh, did they have Syrian passports? Got stamps from Turkey and Greece? No no no, those are fake news sites lying to you. The truth is, we need more cheap labor *ahem* refugees to work in our factories- I mean stop those neo-Nazis from destroying the country.

And if you think this is OK because it serves a liberal agenda, think again. Sooner or later, the party you don't like is going to be in charge and they'll turn the exact same weapon on you.

Re:NYT is Fake News

[coofercat]

...well, actually, maybe not. Maybe they got it right.

Lets say I write a fake news story about how Trump actually had a brief affair with Hilary 10 years ago. My site gets loads of hits because:

1) I'm 'first', and I've got an army of facebook friends all clicking and sharing my link
2) If you google for the story, the BBC, the New York Times, CNN and all the rest don't come anywhere near as high in the rankings as I do - because they haven't written a story about it, and so their SEO is lower than mine on this particular topic

If (say) the Washington Post ran an article for every story that anyone was talking about, then they'd soak up the google hits instead of me. They could put a big banner at the top of the page saying "this is all unverified, and could be fake, or maybe it could be real - we don't know". Now they're actually the responsible organisation, using their size and influence to cast a bit of doubt over the fake news stories until such time as they're investigated properly and found to be true or false. Truthfully though, the logistics of doing something like this would be a considerable challenge, which I guess is why no one seems to be doing it.

Re:NYT is Fake News

[Ol Olsoc]

The problem with that is that assuming evening is a lie leads to post-truth politics. Truth becomes irrelevant, facts are things you pick and choose to suit your established views.

And then they are exposed. Now again, I did note that I give some veracity to NPR and BBC, two orgs that do a pretty good job ofgetting the news right. But Facebook is indeed post-truth, and is going to lose this battle.

Re:NYT is Fake News

[mjwx]

Why is Facebook the issue?

Everyothing is the issue. What has happened is that the fake news people have succeeded too well, and a lot of people are simply not believing anything. I'll give it some veracity if BBC or NPR reports on it, but at this point assume that what I'm reading is a lie. That's what happens when you succeed too well.

Even the Beeb is becoming less reliable these days.

Whilst the creators and purveyors of fake news certainly share a large portion of the blame, if you're looking for the cause then you need only look for the nearest mirror.

Our society has demanded that news suit them. They've grown an intolerance for viewpoints that contradict their own, "facts" they don't agree with. Right now there are right-wingers who think I'm talking about "leftists"... I'm not, I'm referring to you mainly, the people who watch the likes of Fox News or read the Daily Mail willing swallow more bullshit than any leftist publication could ever hope to print (not that they're innocent mind you, but the Guardian will contain more facts than the Tele any day of the week).

We've become a society that values cults of personality over intelligence, slander over reason, echo chambers over debate. Much like the tits of a page 3 girl, people don't care that its fake they just want their ego stroked. I mean deep down every Fox News viewer must know that almost everything on that channel is skewed, distorted, altered or outright fabricated, they just don't care because it is telling them what they want to hear. These people are the problem because they have grown so used to it, any source of real news is to be burned out with extreme vitriol.

We're long past people simply abiding fake news... We've even passed the point where people are openly paying for fake news... We're now at the point were it's being demanded.

Re:NYT is Fake News

[Ol Olsoc]

One of the worst offenders I see is Fox News. On regular cycle they regurgitate repeating fake news fabrications of theirs and broadcast that to their followers. I saw this this time and again throughout the last election cycle, and still today. Always slander the opponent du jour and cast the scum they're backing today in a golden glow.

The others are bad, just not to the degree as Murdock's empire of Fox News in the states and the Sun in the UK.

Fox News is like The Onion if the Onion took itself seriously.

Re:NYT is Fake News

[Maritz]

Does this mean that the BBC is not a legitimate news site?

Your best example is a movie? Got anything... important?

Re:NYT is Fake News

[david_thornley]

Slashdot has published articles about Russian actions, like their Anschluss of the Crimea, shooting down the airliner, etc. There are normally several unfamiliar posters making lots of lame arguments in favor of Russia. It seems like an unlikely venue for this, but I believe there are some Russian shills here.

Re:NYT is Fake News

[david_thornley]

The MSM is not Democrat-controlled, although there are good MSM sources that lean left. The journalists tend to be Democrats, but the owners tend to be Republicans. Fox News is certainly part of the MSM, and isn't Democrat-controlled.

There is evidence that the Russians did at least some of the hacking. The FBI has said they did, and has withheld much of the evidence (as law enforcement agencies tend to do with open cases).

You seem to argue that, even if foreign intervention cost Clinton the election, she lost the election, and therefore it's irrelevant. It seems to me that something that might have had an illegal significant effect on the election should be investigated. You also call Clinton a corrupt, lying, scumbag without much evidence, ignoring the fact that Trump is more corrupt, a much bigger liar, and more of a scumbag than the right-wing propaganda machine painted Clinton.

even to a liberal like me.

OK, that makes it very clear that you're dishonest.

Re:NYT is Fake News

[djinn6]

even to a liberal like me.

OK, that makes it very clear that you're dishonest.

If you bothered to read any of my other posts, you'll see I fully support liberal ideas such as UBI, abortion, marijuana legalization, stemming global warming, electoral college reform, and many others. However, that does not mean I support Clinton. I would've voted for Sanders, but people like you and the DNC decided a corrupt, lying, scumbag was going to be our nominee.

Clinton lost because the things she did made her look as bad as Trump, and Trump is the better liar. The money the Clinton Foundation took while she was the SoS would have had her jailed for corruption in many countries. Just because it's legal here makes no difference to me. Same goes for her private Wall Street fundraisers.

It seems to me that something that might have had an illegal significant effect on the election should be investigated.

Unfortunately, the truth had a significant effect on elections. I still haven't heard anyone in the Clinton camp say those emails were fake or made up. The Russians were not wrong to reveal it. If anything, they did us a service.

Re:NYT is Fake News

[kaatochacha]

One thing I generally see about Fox news is that the people who don't like it generally hate it WITHOUT ACTUALLY WATCHING IT.
It's on in my gym, and before the election they had a whole range of people debating immigration. Right, left, center, whatever. And the host was popping everyone.
Since I don't normally watch Fox, I kept thinking "Where's the slobbering rants I'm supposed to see? This looks reasonably fair."
Because I relied on secondhand information to judge the channel.

Oh yes, I'm sure there are rabid hosts. And the equivalent counterpart over at MSNBC as well-- I've seen Rachel Maddow actually tongue tie herself trying to manipulate facts. But that exists everywhere.
Personally, I like to take in all the nonsense and figure it out myself.

Re:NYT is Fake News

[sd4f]

I think it's rather disingenuous to publish an article based purely on speculation. The media should be fact checking stories before they are published. Just providing a disclosure statement on someones hunch is unethical in my view because it's not news; someone's having a stab in the dark and hoping that later on it might be right.

Unfortunately we rely on honesty from the media, thing is it's like a maths problem, if a guess is made and it's correct, the method is still wrong. The person making the guess can make out like as if they knew what they were doing, but in reality they didn't have a clue. We rely on the media upholding standards in their 'method' to news gathering, and the degradation of these standards is why the collective mainstream media has been getting things so wrong. The media has burnt quite a lot of good will with proven conspiracies (Journalists collaborating with the Clinton campaign), bias, yellow journalism and basic dishonesty with their readers, not to mention the humiliation of getting their predictions so wrong. I think the that 'post-truth' and fake news hasn't been engaged by the public as much as the media would have liked as a result of that lost good will.

heatst

[smaugy]

Check out the history of posts linking to heatst.com on Reddit. It's a 100% fucking clickbait site, and Slashdot got punked.

Slashdot fucked up. Delete this shit.

Re:Is Hillary! Running in Germany?

[Z00L00K]

Hillary would probably have a better chance in Germany than in the US.

But you have to be sure that it's fake news, not just satire. And what if it's real news declared to be fake?

China?

[freakingme]

All the while we're calling out to China for their censorship practices. It seems the western parts of this world are not all that much better, doesn't it?

Re:China?

[Kkloe]

It is actually giving social sites nearly same status as a newspaper, as a social site is a site run by a company even if ppl have thier own accounts, everything that is posted there is posted as facebook and/or the person posting it.
For a newspaper, they would have a editor, if the paper posted fake news, then the editor could be fined\put in prison.
Facebook has tried alot like uber saying that they are it company and not a media company(as much as uber is not a taxi company)

The Russians ate my homework

[fustakrakich]

And they signed my report card, wrote my permission slip to go on the field trip, and doctor's note when I wanted to stay home. I mean, really! The Russians are fantastic! They invented the telephone, the light bulb, and the airplane. They made the British Navy the most powerful in the world. Oh wait, that was Spain. Is Franco still dead? Or did the Russians revive him too?

So what is fake news?

[Bender Unit 22]

Does it include the big media news sources that takes something that is a rumor and runs with it?
Does it include the omission of fact? When it is not a lie, but it is also not the entire story but they omit something because it doesn't not fit their narrative?

Or is it just those stories that shows the government doing a piss poor job of running the country?

Re:So what is fake news?

[Anonymous Coward]

None of those are fake news, just poor or biased reporting. Fake news runs more toward, "DNA analysis reveals Ted Cruz fathered by space alien", or "Insider: Sanders rigged Democratic primaries for Clinton".

I guess we have to use $522,000

[darthsilun]

Because on /.'s last century platform we can't post a €500,000.

Oh look, € actually works. Most other stuff doesn't though.

Re:I guess we have to use $522,000

[LynnwoodRooster]

The real story here is that the Euro continues to slide, it's now almost at parity with the dollar. When will it fall below parity? March, May? My guess is by July.

Re:I guess we have to use $522,000

[darthsilun]

Well, the Euro is sliding, but so is everything else. The Pound, the Yen, the Canadian Dollar, the Argentine Peso, and Indian Rupees, etc.

The US economy is doing well and it's really the Dollar's strength – against everything – as near as I can tell.

The Euro started life at $0.85 or so. It wouldn't surprise me to see it go back under a dollar. The Pound almost reached parity back in 1985, maybe it will do it again. Brexit hasn't helped either the Euro or the Pound. Also Europe's austerity measures. Look what we did after 2008 versus what Europe did. Keynesian economics FTW.

Re:Is Hillary! Running in Germany?

[PopeRatzo]

But there, they call her Angela Merkel and they make her wear Harry Reid's "droopy dog" jowls.

You dare talk about jowls?

http://static.boredpanda.com/b...

http://resize.indiatvnews.com/...

https://d.ibtimes.co.uk/en/ful...

This is asking for a death match of whack-a-mole

[No Longer an AC]

Sure the Germans can determine that some news stories are "fake" and they can tell FB to remove them (or links to them I guess) from their site and they could technically do that I guess.

Are ze Germans going to meticulously examine every website to see if they should be deleted or will they take a heavy-handed approach and just ban almost everything that aren't from approved sources?

If they're going to carefully consider each case, anyone could set up a dozen websites while they're trying to figure out if one of them in particular is "fake".

Not to mention the issue of censoring opposing viewpoints. I'm amazed at some of the things people call "fake" now. It has quickly become the first defense of people who wish to deny reality.

This post is totally fake!

And I'll admit to being pretty ignorant about Germany's laws, but do they have anything resembling the First Amendment in the US? I know you can't go around promoting Nazis which you could do in the US, but I'm not sure where exactly they draw the line.

I mean surely, Germany believes in free speech, right?

Redefreiheit? (I don't speak German - for all I know the website that told me that means "Freedom of Speech" in German was fake).

What About Malicious Takedown Requests?

[Ken McE]

So how much is owed to Facebook (or whoever) each time someone misuses this to take down something they don't like? How about €500,000 per incident?

Re:And Heatst?

[allcoolnameswheretak]

Can these Anonymous Russian trolls that are trying to ridicule the real problem of fake news and the Russian propaganda war against western democracy and our free press kindly fuck off.

bipartisan support?

[fustakrakich]

Wait, doesn't Germany have more than two parties? Are we really supposed to take this 'article' seriously? Really, requiring Facebook to set up offices? What happens if they don't? Are the Germans going to start lobbing artillery, again? Let me find my low sodium salt pills...

bipartisan?

[jandar]

What does "bipartisan support" mean in a system with 7 (*) parties governing the various legislative organs and a federal government of a coalition of 3 parties?

Do the US American journalists have no vocabulary to describe the reality outside of their country?

(*) I hope I haven't missed any party.

Re:bipartisan?

[LordONE]

It's quite correct in this case as the third party in the coalition - the CSU - is basically the Bavarian catholic special snowflake edition of the CDU (Merkel's party). So it's basically two parties (CDU/CSU as one and SPD as one) in the majority coalition. The votes of the other opposition parties are not required in the lawmaking process if it does not concern constitutional laws and members of parliament ("Bundestag") voting against party lines is highly unusual.

So yeah "bipartisan" as in "CDU/CSU and SPD" is quite correct.

Re:Ah, I get the definition

[elrous0]

It's tempting to think the pedophilia narrative was somehow intentionally introduced by a mole to divert everyone's attention from the real story, but I've learned to never attribute to malice that which can be attributed to stupidity or incompetence. I think it this case, it was probably the case of someone just being an well-meaning idiot and going way too far with the narrative instead of starting with the simplest and most logical conclusions.

Re:Ah, I get the definition

[Anonymous Coward]

I wouldn't be surprised if there's truth to the "pizzagate" even if a lot of the namings and definitions there like the name of the pizza joint weren't accurate. Ever heard of code names? Put in a code name that is the same as an actual unrelated business and you get a great diversion.

It's known that Bill Clinton thinks with his dick from time to time and likes young women. Hillary must know at least something and let the dicks play around just to get what she wants. As long as she was able to get what she wanted she let the men play around with the provision that if they crossed her then she would reveal their play.

So what I am getting out of this is you fell for the fake news hook, line and sinker.

From what I can tell

[rsilvergun]

the Fake News spread because Facebook fired their Editorial dept to save money and replaced them with a cheap an weak algorithm. The fines would be a good way to force them back I suppose. That said something like this could be abused. At least in the States we don't make reporters reveal sources, so it'd be hard to prove 'fake' news. OTOH having foreign governments spreading propaganda and misinformation in your country is enough of a national security question that you can't just throw up your hands and do nothing.

Re:From what I can tell

[djinn6]

OTOH having foreign governments spreading propaganda and misinformation in your country is enough of a national security question that you can't just throw up your hands and do nothing.

How is it a national security issue? I hope you're not talking about the DNC and Clinton Foundation emails, because those are not propaganda and misinformation. Nobody even denied their authenticity.

Re: Ah, I get the definition

[Anonymous Coward]

there's truth in that - meter sticks are longer than yard sticks

Re:Merkel....

[angel'o'sphere]

What exactly did you want to say?
Taking down "Fake News" from your web site is ... hm, wrong?
Being forced to do it by law is ... wrong?
Is something wrong with your mind?

Re:This is asking for a death match of whack-a-mol

[angel'o'sphere]

The point is that a web site should take down "false news" when notified about the false news.

So what again is your problem?

Re:Ah, I get the definition

[mark-t]

The allegations may not be "fake", but the news is, because there was no material evidence that what was being alleged actually ever occurred. It may have, but the evidence that is alleged to exist is too tenuous and speculative to justify actual legal action, and without at least enough evidence to warrant a real court case, it isn't really news.

Martin Luther's 95 Theses

[Max_W]

could also be interpreted as a faked news by some at that time: http://www.luther.de/en/95thes...

Nevertheless, Luther nailed his Ninety-five Theses to the door of All Saints' Church in Wittenberg, Germany, on 31 October 1517. And it changed the world.

Great. Now they should do this for all news

[marquisdepolis]

.. and finally we'll have a fully accurate state-approved list of items to read.

And cat videos.

Re:Great. Now they should do this for all news

[hyades1]

CBC, BBC and other "state" news outlets have done an excellent job of reporting real news for generations. Only in the United States are a lot of people foolish enough to believe a better job will be done by giant corporations that only report what people want to hear because it generates more profit. So yes, Germany will have a much better chance at having a fair election if they enact this measure, and sensible people will continue to mourn the death of genuine news media (and probably democracy) in the US.

It's not fake news

[fluffernutter]

It's not fake news, it's just the death of any media outlet that game a damn about checking facts, as well as the death of people who cared to go out of their way for a media outlet that did so. There used to be a thing called journalistic integrity but it comes at a cost and no one wants to pay. The biggest problem is, it was doing a lot to hold back the days of Idiocracy. Sadly, those days are now well upon us.

Re:Ah, I get the definition

[LynnwoodRooster]

Tenuous? Speculative? I thought the standard was the seriousness of the charge, the nature of the evidence being irrelevant.

Re: Ah, I get the definition

[MightyMartian]

I can't even prove with 100 accuracy that you're not a child molester. I'd better earn your neighbors just in case.

Re: Ah, I get the definition

[Layzej]

Speaking of fake news, can anybody prove a specific news story was fake and had a measurable effect on election results, with data to back that up? No takers?

How about anything published by Jestin Coler, CEO of a company called Disinfomedia?

During the run-up to the presidential election, fake news really took off. "It was just anybody with a blog can get on there and find a big, huge Facebook group of kind of rabid Trump supporters just waiting to eat up this red meat that they're about to get served," Coler says.

At any given time, Coler says, he has between 20 and 25 writers. And it was one of them who wrote the story in the Denver Guardian that an FBI agent who leaked Clinton emails was killed. Coler says that over 10 days the site got 1.6 million views.

"The people wanted to hear this," he says. "So all it took was to write that story. Everything about it was fictional: the town, the people, the sheriff, the FBI guy. And then ... our social media guys kind of go out and do a little dropping it throughout Trump groups and Trump forums and boy it spread like wildfire."

And as the stories spread, Coler makes money from the ads on his websites. He wouldn't give exact figures, but he says stories about other fake-news proprietors making between $10,000 and $30,000 a month apply to him.

Re: Ah, I get the definition

[darthsilun]

The electoral law in the United States of America is based on electoral college not popularity. It is precisely to prevent a small number of states (California, New York) from always determining the outcome.

Uh, tell us something we don't already know. And BTW, the electoral college is also there to prevent someone who is not qualified for the job from taking office. Something – IMO – they failed to do this time around.

In comparison...

In comparison to what?

... 302 votes to 232 votes, or thereabouts, is a relative landslide though not historic record breaking.

By what objective measure is this a "landslide." Answer: none.

Russian Trolls

[Layzej]

Interesting interview with a couple of them here. “The reason I’m hired is to make simple people change their mind about their vote and also about Russia,” the woman said. She later added that she identifies herself as an American housewife from Nebraska while online, and not as a Russian.

Re:Russian Trolls

[Layzej]

If a direct interview with the culprits wouldn't convince you then what proof possibly could?

The party of bi people. French federal government

[raymorris]

> What does "bipartisan support" mean in a system with 7 parties

It's supported by the bi party, the party of bi people, of course.

> Eo the US American journalists have no vocabulary to describe the reality outside of their country?

This reminds me of the story last week about the federal government of France. Huh? Federalism in France? For a fraction of a second I thought you made the same mistake when you mentioned the federal government of Germany, but then I realized Germany is in fact a federation, federal is the proper term.

> (*) I hope I haven't missed any party.

I hope you didn't miss last night's party, it was rockin.

Re: Ah, I get the definition

[RoccamOccam]

It doesn't have to have affected the election to be fake news.

...

Trump got only 302 votes.

Fake news! Fake news! Trump received 304 votes.

Re: Ah, I get the definition

[Entrope]

So the Pizzagate story was fake but accurate?

This is a great idea.

[foolishness]

These fucking social media sites want your personal info so they can sell it and offer you fake shit in return. Good on you Germany

There is nothing Alex Jones would doubt

[Layzej]

...shit Alex Jones would doubt

There is not likely to be any conspiracy that Jones would doubt. In fact, he was one of the main promoters of the fabricated conspiracy.

Re:There is nothing Alex Jones would doubt

[NoNonAlphaCharsHere]

That's why it's so delicious, him demanding "proof" of Russian interference in the election. You could even call it ironic. I wonder what he's going to have to say once Trump is in charge of the HAARP machinery controlling the weather, earthquakes, chemtrails and tsunamis.

Re:There is nothing Alex Jones would doubt

[Layzej]

Alex Jones Deletes Video In Which He Had Told His Audience To Personally "Investigate" "Pizzagate" Restaurant. Deletion Came After Listener Seeking To "Self-Investigate" Comet Ping Ping Fired Shots Inside

On his November 27 program, Jones spent roughly half an hour pushing pizzagate conspiracy theories and told his audience that they “have to go investigate it for yourself," claiming, "Something’s going on. Something’s being covered up. It needs to be investigated.

He has since removed the video. According to the Internet Archive, the “Down The #Pizzagate Rabbit Hole” video was online as of December 6 but “removed by the user” by December 7. A tweet by Jones promoting the video is still online; it captures roughly 10 minutes of the video and links to the removed YouTube page. Non-Jones YouTube accounts have re-uploaded the “Down The #Pizzagate Rabbit Hole – Warning! Soul Sucking Info.” The video is roughly 30 minutes long.

Jones also removed the Jon Bowne video that Jones played during his November 27 program. On November 23, Jones’ YouTube channel posted the video with the headline “Pizzagate Is Real: Something Is Going On, But What?” The video was removed “by the user” shortly after the shooting, according to the Internet Archive.

Re:There is nothing Alex Jones would doubt

[Shoten]

...shit Alex Jones would doubt

There is not likely to be any conspiracy that Jones would doubt. In fact, he was one of the main promoters of the fabricated conspiracy.

There are shitloads of conspiracies that Alex Jones would doubt. Let me cite a few:

1, anything that makes Donald Trump look bad.

2, anything that makes Donald Trump's opposition look good.

3, anything that hurts his own image.

Re: How Fake?

[Entrope]

In this context, and given how northern Europe has enforced speech- and press-related laws recently, we can be pretty sure that it means "contains things that the German government disagrees with or wishes were not true" fake.

Re: Ah, I get the definition

[slashrio]

Yes, and rightly so, after all US citizens are the majority of the world population with ... 5%?? Oh, wait.

Re:Don't you know?

[slashrio]

Fake news is:

Iraq had WMDs.
During the Kuwait invasion Iraqi soldiers threw the babies out of the incubators and took them (the incubators) home.
The Vietnamese attacked a US aircraft carrier with rubber boats in the Gulf of Tonkin.
Iran wants to destroy Israel.
Ghaddafi was killing his citizens, just for fun.
Assad threw nerve gas to his citizens, also for the fun of it, or to punish them for support to ISIS (yeah right).

I'm sure we can find some more after some digging.
Is Reuters now going to pay half a million for every spin story they publish in order to get 'we the people' lined up behind the war plans of our governments?

Lol, good luck

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

"Lawmakers in the country are reportedly hoping it will prevent Russia from interfering in Germany's elections next year."

Lol, good luck with that.

Russia doesn't give a shit if German newspapers get fined and the newspapers don't have the staff, time, or inclination to check every story.

Re: Ah, I get the definition

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

Fake news: Pretty much anything from Breitbart or Kellyanne Conway, among others.

Kellyanne Conway, owner of the "Most Punchable Face" award since that little shitbag Martin Shkreli dropped off the radar.

You can tell when Kellyanne Conway is lying because her lips are moving.

Re:Ah, I get the definition

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

It's known that Bill Clinton thinks with his dick from time to time and likes young women.

Thank goodness that's not true of Trump. And he has the decency to marry his pornstar child brides after cheating with them on his previous wives.

-

As long as she was able to get what she wanted she let the men play around with the provision that if they crossed her then she would reveal their play.

And don't forget that no other woman is history has ever done such a thing.

Dawn of the Ministry of Truth

[John Jorsett]

Facebook and other affected social networks would have to create "in-country offices focused on responding to takedown demands," the report says.

Orwell only got the timeframe wrong, and the fact that it'll be a public-private partnership instead of purely governmental.

Re:Merkel....

[John Jorsett]

What exactly did you want to say? Taking down "Fake News" from your web site is ... hm, wrong? Being forced to do it by law is ... wrong? Is something wrong with your mind?

The problem here is that, similarly to DMCA takedowns, the default action is going to be to take it down as soon as a complaint is filed, not perform some sort of investigation to make sure the complaint is legit. So if you're a party bent on suppressing unfavorable or inconvenient news, it'll be in your interest to gin up complaints to get it removed. The only thing that would act to ameliorate this would be fines for illegitimate complaints, and what are the chances of that happening?

Falsity...

[SeattleLawGuy]

Articles should have scores on at least two dimensions: reliability and popularity. Popularity can be captured by something like "likes," but reliability should be determined in a different way. Coming from a major news source like the Washington Post or the New York Times should give an initial leg up on reliability (say start at sixty percent if from them), but not more than that unless it's a piece they specially flag as a significant product of investigative reporting. Most stuff that most reputable sources produce is interesting and somewhat accurate, but not written by experts. Consequently it tends to be a bit wrong.

Re:Falsity...

[Ol Olsoc]

Articles should have scores on at least two dimensions: reliability and popularity. Popularity can be captured by something like "likes," but reliability should be determined in a different way. Coming from a major news source like the Washington Post or the New York Times should give an initial leg up on reliability (say start at sixty percent if from them), but not more than that unless it's a piece they specially flag as a significant product of investigative reporting. Most stuff that most reputable sources produce is interesting and somewhat accurate, but not written by experts. Consequently it tends to be a bit wrong.

But try posting something negaive about Russian hackers in here. Immediately pounced upon and gets modded troll. Then post something positive about the same, and it hits +5 something with a bullet.

The same people doing this are in social media like Facebook, so you don't stand a chance. The tragedy of the commons is always won by the prople who want to destroy the commons

Re:Ah, I get the definition

[mark-t]

Exactly. Seriousness of the *charge*, not just an allegation. If there isn't enough evidence to warrant a charge, then it's just fake news unless more evidence turns up, You can allege something *very* serious, but if you have no real evidence to substantiate it beyond speculation, it's not real news.

Re:Ah, I get the definition

[LynnwoodRooster]

Please see the original context of my reference, RE: Tom Foley in the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings. Allusions and innuendo constitute a charge that needs to be considered, from a political standpoint. Even Dan Rather fell back on that position during his FakeNews episode with President Bush and TANG. Simply alluding to something wrong is as damning as an actual conviction - if there's politics involved...

Will it include WP and NYT?

[zedaroca]

The "Russia hacked the U.S. election" headline, in contrast with "some Russians hacked the DNC and we don't know who leaked to Wikileaks", is the biggest case of fake news out there and almost no one is talking about it. Because of this type of deceitful headline half of Clinton's voters believe that the Russian government hacked the vote tallies, even tough there is no indication of that and no officials are actually claiming.

Re:Is Hillary! Running in Germany?

[mukinrestak]

8) The press kept reporting on nothing but trump. How about a rational discussion of the issues in the other 23 hours a day? Funny, I voted against Hillary because of the issues. No matter how bad Trump might end up, at least we stopped the fuckin TPP.

Re:Merkel....

[Anonymous Coward]

Merkel is attempting censorship through coercion. The whole "fake news" is just wordsmith for news or discussion that runs counter to establishment goals or narrative. Merkel doesn't want people talking about how the immigration flood that her owners demand is harming the country. Any discussion on that will be labelled as "fake news" or "hate speech" and shut down. Doesn't matter if it's truth or not.

Hence the comparison to a totalitarian regime.

So who decides?

[epyT-R]

Who decides what's 'fake' news? The ministry of truth?

This isn't new

[Solandri]

In the days before social media, we simply called this "gossip" rather than "fake news". The problem isn't Facebook, or Google, or the New York Times, or BBC, or any of the other organizations people seem all too eager to blame.

The problem is us. People have this bad tendency to give too much credibility to unconfirmed information sources. Especially if what that source is telling us is something we want to believe is true (which is why the left is eating up all the fake news about Russia hacking the election, while the right is eating up all the fake news about illegal immigrants voting in the election). All newspapers and later the Internet and social media do is give more leverage for a single person or organization to spread their gossip to more people.

For that reason, fining Facebook or shutting down news organizations isn't the solution. All that does is hide the problem. The gossip still gets spread, albeit less effectively, by word of mouth (or by email/text today). To address the problem, you have to train people to be cautiously critical about stories that they hear or see, whether it's from a friend of a friend, from a social media site, or on the TV news. Unfortunately, it's suicidal for a democratic government to point the finger of blame at the voters who elected it into power. So they create bogeymen out of easy targets like Facebook and blame them for the problem.

Re: Is Hillary! Running in Germany?

[HornWumpus]

That was the good Comey; the one who lied about the law to give Hillary a pass.

Not the evil Comey; the one who gave the election to Trump by actually looking at new data just before the election.

Re:Merkel....

[lgw]

What exactly did you want to say?
Taking down "Fake News" from your web site is ... hm, wrong?
Being forced to do it by law is ... wrong?
Is something wrong with your mind?

The government will fine you $500k/day for any story the government tells you is fake news. And I suspect you can't wait for a note from the government, no, you have to predict what stories the government won't like, so better error on the side of deletion. If you can't see how that is wrong, congratulations, you're a totalitarian.

Do people just go around believing that the actual purpose of a law is it's stated purpose? Do you believe salesmen, too?

Re:charge and allegation are the same thing.

[mark-t]

Not if you don't have any actual victims .

Re:And Heatst?

[allcoolnameswheretak]

Yes, I know some of you are Useful Idiots who voted for the greatest useful idiot of all.

Sad.

Re:This is asking for a death match of whack-a-mol

[HornWumpus]

There is plenty to criticize Germany for. But calling it 'poor and dirty' just shows you have never been there.

I suggest 'rules crazy' and 'obsessed with the opinions of others, like lifelong middle schoolers' to describe the Germans.

Re:This is asking for a death match of whack-a-mol

[lgw]

If you know anything at all about DMCA takedowns, you know they're abused. If you know anything about history, you know governments consistently abuse any power given to them. If you can't see how giving the government the power to automatically delete any story it doesn't like will inevitably be abused, you're as naive as they come.

If this holds up...

[meerling]

If this holds up it's going to be a huge mess, especially for fox and beitbart.

Re: Ah, I get the definition

[jedidiah]

There's plenty of stuff that liberals in power don't want widely known. Europeans will throw censorship laws at anything that doesn't fit their propaganda narrative.

Re: Ah, I get the definition

[jedidiah]

A small number of states can, but you never know which ones. This time it happened to be some states that Hillary took for granted. The irony is that those states are flyover states filled with white working class people. These are both categories constantly trashed by liberals (and Clinton herself).

Clinton failed because she did exactly what you think a presidential candidate is able to do.

Re: Ah, I get the definition

[sabri]

So sad, they're mad, the faggots of California can't push Clinton on the rest of the nation.

Hey you. Yeah you, AC. Take a closer look to the CA results and you'll see that one third of CA voters voted for the other guy. In my neighborhood alone, there are quite a number of Trump voters.

Not all of CA is retarded. Just the few square miles south of the Golden Gate, which will fall in the ocean when the next big one hits anyway.

Fake news takedown notice:

[buss_error]

Date: June 17, 1972

The government office of News Verification and Purity has determined that your publication, The Washington Post, is responsible for the fake news article entitled "5 Held in Plot to Bug Democrats' Office Here" is false to fact and an irresponsible use of the public trust. You are herein DIRECTED and ORDERED to remove said post and issue a retraction within 24 hours or face fines and criminal penalties.

Your immediate compliance is required as a matter of law.

Regards,
Richard M. Nixon

All sarcasm and flights of fancy aside, some cures are indeed worse than the disease, or at least carry risks of their own. This isn't to say that I wouldn't have liked to see some consequence for Mr. Trump for the constant use of the phrase "Crooked Hillery" (How many times was she investigated and never even charged with a crime?) and his characterizations of many, many others. The proper response to my mind would have been for voters to see through his waiving of the bloody shirt and throwing of dead cats on the table and simply voted for a worthy candidate. Unfortunately, 2016 saw a year where there was no worthy candidates, only those less evil, and a perfect storm of voters too stupid, too lazy, too full of hate, too misinformed, or too hypnotized to see through it. During world war II, the English (indeed, most of the rest of the world) had a saying: "You can count on the Americans to do the right thing; after they have tried everything else first."

I'm not saying fake news isn't a problem because it is. To my mind the best fix for that is a voter that is less inclined to hear what he wants to hear while disregarding any thing they don't want to hear.

That, and a billion dollars. I'm as like to get one as the other.

Re: Ah, I get the definition

[mjm1231]

Um, there have been 45 presidential elections which were bigger "landslides" than Trump's. 77% of past presidential elections had bigger margins. (Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...)

When you consider that Trump lost the popular vote by a relatively large margin, it is a huuuge stretch to call his election a landslide.

 

Re:Don't you know?

[Anonymous Coward]

Iran wants to destroy Israel

They literally have a holiday where they chant "Death to Israel" and "Death to America." Do you think that's rhetorical? Why have it then? Here is what the supreme leader says about that:

"The slogans of the Iranian nation on Al-Qods Day show what its position is. The slogans ‘Death to Israel’ and ‘Death to America’ have resounded throughout the country, and are not limited to Tehran and the other large cities. The entire country is under the umbrella of this great movement (of ‘Death to Israel / America’)"

Do you think that he didn't really say that? The way to be sure of course is to look at a group's actions, not their words: they are literally giving weapons to groups that attack Israel. So it is without doubt that Iran wants Israel gone. They just want to do it in a way that avoids nuclear retaliation from Israel.

Re:Ah, I get the definition

[phantomfive]

I thought Pizzagate was some people talking about where to eat pizza. Is there something more than that (besides weirdos interpreting it weirdly)?

The USSR didn't nuke the USA...

[knorthern knight]

> OTOH having foreign governments spreading propaganda and misinformation in your country
> is enough of a national security question that you can't just throw up your hands and do nothing.

So you're saying that the USSR should've nuked the USA because of Voice of America https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... and Radio Free Europe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... shortwave broadcasts?

Dewey Defeats Truman!

[nicoleb_x]

Who can forget that classic piece of fake new from 1948?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:Merkel....

[BasilBrush]

If only we had some other communication medium than social media to communicate such genuine items of news. You could call it "The News" or you could print it on paper and call it a "Newspaper".

Re:Merkel....

[angel'o'sphere]

As far as I understood it the complaints need to come from an authority, and are not random.

If you get an illegit DMCA takedown note, the guy who issued it is liable. So you can sue him and nail him for the costs he caused. If he can pay is ofc. another matter.

Re:This is asking for a death match of whack-a-mol

[angel'o'sphere]

If you can't see how giving the government the power to automatically delete any story it doesn't like will inevitably be abused,
Which part of "law" and how a society is run, do you not get?

The government has no power to abuse the law, as the law is executed by the juristic branch, like all laws and not by the government.

We are not in Turkey or any dictatorship.

Re:Ah, I get the definition

[mark-t]

When you make an allegation that can't be substantiated, it's not real news... whether or not the thing actually happened is entirely irrelevant. The most outlandish thing possible can be alleged, but regardless of the magnitude of what was being described, it doesn't become *real* news until the allegation can be substantiated by something beyond speculation and subjective interpretation of particular events or statements.

Re: No, that's not it

[scsirob]

The real problem isn't Facebook, Twitter, the Russians, Chinese or whatever.

The real problem is who gets to decide what news is real or fake.

This is no more or less than an attempt to set up a 'Ministry of Truth'. People are very easy to manipulate, and having a system to gauge 'news' gives anyone immense power over those people.

Re:Ah, I get the definition

[Z00L00K]

I don't exclude the possibility that some of it is true. There are too many cases of stuff that has been dismissed as false that later has been revealed to be true to some extent.

Therefore the problem with "false news" is that it opens the can of worms of censorship.

Still...

[SuperDre]

How do you actually know if it's fake news? and what is considered fake news? It's a very VERY slippery slope..

Re:Merkel....

[lgw]

Wow, you're an actual enthusiastic totalitarian. Eeesh. Kind of scary.

Re:Don't you know?

[slashrio]

Then McCain is much clearer with his: "Nuke 'm all! Nuke! Nuke! Nuke!"

Re: Ah, I get the definition

[slashrio]

Unlimited creation of fiat money started the demise of every great empire.

Why not just "mark" as fake?

[fbobraga]

Deleting seems too much for me: it obfuscates the fake news source...
Why not just mark (with a very showy way: using text fonts in red, for example...) it is fake?

Re:Merkel....

[qaz123]

>> complaints need to come from an authority
How does it make it better?

Re: Ah, I get the definition

[fbobraga]

I didn't knew this definition of landslide victory...

Re:Don't you know?

[fbobraga]

they say, "Death to Israel!" but they really mean, "Death to Zionism!" And they say, "Death to America!" but they really mean, "Death to American foreign policy!"

can someone give some context here?

Re:This is asking for a death match of whack-a-mol

[HornWumpus]

Last year. My entire extended family are Germans. Dad is a naturalized american citizen, Mom is still German. I have dual citizenship (Technicality; I'm an American who drives/skis/drinks like a German).

You are so full of shit, your eyes are shit colored. Germans are neat freaks, Hamburg is a little bit 'big city' but still cleaner than any city in America. Outside Hamburg? You could be in Switzerland.

America has _much_ more dirt poor immigration than Europe. One good thing about Europe getting a taste, we won't have to hear so much self righteous blather about us being unkind to the beaners. America has a 10% higher per capita income...you'd have to define 'poor' in an absurd way to put the line there.

I Like The Idea, But...

[Zamphatta]

Maybe if they fined each person who shares a fake news story, then people would start being more thoughtful before sharing news. That would get to the heart of the problem quicker. The heart of the problem being -- many people can't be bothered to learn how to identify fake news & actually think about it before sending it off to others. If people had to open their wallets each time they did it, they'd be motivated to think first & share later.

Re:Merkel....

[Agripa]

The problem here is that, similarly to DMCA takedowns, the default action is going to be to take it down as soon as a complaint is filed, not perform some sort of investigation to make sure the complaint is legit. So if you're a party bent on suppressing unfavorable or inconvenient news, it'll be in your interest to gin up complaints to get it removed. The only thing that would act to ameliorate this would be fines for illegitimate complaints, and what are the chances of that happening?

No news is good news.

Re:Merkel....

[Agripa]

If you get an illegit DMCA takedown note, the guy who issued it is liable. So you can sue him and nail him for the costs he caused. If he can pay is ofc. another matter.

As exemplified by all of the lawsuits over false DMCA take down notices?

Re:Don't you know?

[Agripa]

Fake news is:

Iraq had WMDs.
During the Kuwait invasion Iraqi soldiers threw the babies out of the incubators and took them (the incubators) home.
The Vietnamese attacked a US aircraft carrier with rubber boats in the Gulf of Tonkin.
Iran wants to destroy Israel.
Ghaddafi was killing his citizens, just for fun.
Assad threw nerve gas to his citizens, also for the fun of it, or to punish them for support to ISIS (yeah right).

The government hates competition.

Re:This is asking for a death match of whack-a-mol

[HornWumpus]

I'll just leave this here (Moron):

Per capita GDP of Germany: 46,268.64

Per capita GDP of the USA: 53,041.98

Germany is 15% higher? The rest of your points are just as wrong. Some things are more there, some things are less. Quality is generally higher. Beer is about nine euros for 20 500ml bottles of good German beer.

You're the one who says Germany is 'dirty and poor', fucking idiot. I'll take the average Syrian over the average Salvadoran. To say nothing of the fact the USA has so many more than Europe (% wise as well as absolute numbers).

Re:Ah, I get the definition

[MercTech]

Pizzagate? A parody of malicious reporting that tries to show multiple coincidences indicate heinous intentions. The original tongue in cheek Daily Onion like parody was humorous but the hilarity went exponential when news outlets started taking it seriously and even the mainstream news that realized it was parody played it up that people actually believed it.... then some actually did start believing it. It is as if the Weekly World News became a prime-time national news network with that story.

Re:Merkel....

[MercTech]

The EU prefers the totalitarian way to handle fake news making laws for charges and government fines for disseminating "fake" stories. A big question with that is who has the burden of proof? Does the author of a personal blog that posts something that the government doesn't like have a burden to PROVE in court he told things accurately or does the government have the burden to prove that posting individual knowingly and maliciously posted a "fake" story? Regrettable, Euro style liberal governments seem to go for the totalitarian solution and make the burden of proof the responsibility of the accused.
          The U.S. seems to go a different direction in what to do about "fake" news. Many are in favor of removing the exception to the libel and slander laws for news outlets allowing criminal and civil charges against a news provider that disseminates "fake" news. As it is today; a "journalist" can claim any hokey story is "from a reliable source" no matter the lack of veracity in the story and be exempted from prosecution from libel or slander. News publications would benefit from a return to the days when a news publisher could be held accountable for the veracity of their stories and the damage they cause with faked, spin doctored, mid-informed, and outright editing to fit a false narrative.

What about politicians?

[NewYork]

Can we impose fine on politicians on their failed promises?

Re:Well, yes, that was the point.

[Maritz]

Genuinely cannot tell which 'side' of the argument you're on. That probably means that you didn't make your point as well as you might have.

Re: Ah, I get the definition

[Maritz]

That claim will be all the more laughable after Trump/Putin get a crack at running your shit for four years (minimum). lol.

Re: Ah, I get the definition

[Maritz]

"Europeans". If that's the scope and nuance of your thinking, looks like you can safely be ignored.

Re:Merkel....

[Maritz]

It will surely gladden Dear Leader Vlad's heart that you gullible chumps are quite so numerous.

Re:Is Hillary! Running in Germany?

[Maritz]

TPP was stopped because the EU left the table. Fuck all to do with Trump.

Re: Is Hillary! Running in Germany?

[david_thornley]

Comey didn't lie to give Clinton a pass. I don't remember him saying it was good or legal, just that no prosecutor would prosecute on that basis.

There is no evidence that Clinton deliberately mishandled classified material. Having looked at several cases of intentional and unintentional mishandling of classified material, it became clear that nobody gets criminally prosecuted for unintentional mishandling. There was one case of a guy who agreed to plead guilty to a misdemeanor, but in the end he didn't have to. Most but not all people who intentionally mishandled it faced criminal charges.

This is not a statement of law. This is a statement of practice. Prosecuting Clinton criminally for untintentional mishandling of classified material would have been unprecedented.

There was no reason Comey shouldn't have looked at new data at any time. His duty was to keep his big mouth shut about it that close to the election. He should face charges for that.

Re:Is Hillary! Running in Germany?

[david_thornley]

Clinton was against the TPP as it turned out, although she liked it in the early stages. She's a lot friendlier to free trade treaties than Trump, but she wouldn't automatically support any garbage as long as it included freer trade.

Re:Merkel....

[lgw]

You see only the good from giving the government power over communication, because they'll do good things with that power, and not abuse it. This is exactly the mindset of a totalitarian: always give the government more power, so that they can do more good.

Re: Is Hillary! Running in Germany?

[HornWumpus]

No intent requirement in the law. It was absolutely a pass that nobody else would get. The pass was unprecedented, the charge would have been SOP.

Re: Is Hillary! Running in Germany?

[david_thornley]

Do the research yourself, if you don't trust mine. You can find cases of people who unintentionally mishandled classified material. You will find that they did not face criminal prosecution. Literally all the cases I found of criminal prosecution were of people who intentionally mishandled classified material. The pass on prosecution is completely standard for people who did what Clinton did.

Again, I'm not talking about black-letter law. I'm talking about how it has been consistently applied in the past.

If you deliberately mishandle classified material, your reasons and intended use of it are not likely to get you off, but that's a different matter.

Re:Merkel....

[angel'o'sphere]

You don't get it.
The government has not more power.

A random institution, connected to the public prosecutor's office has more power.

And every decision they make can be challenged in court.

So the only change of that the new law brings is the amount of fine and defining the reaction time during which the "offender" has to react to avoid said fine.

There is nothing totalitarian at all in this new law.

Re:Merkel....

[angel'o'sphere]

We don't have that in Germany, so I'm not following such news much, so you should give an example :D
And while you are on it, I guess you find also examples where the law suits went correctly.

Re:Merkel....

[angel'o'sphere]

In the sense of "separations of power".

Re:Don't you know?

[Coren22]

Iraq had WMDs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

How is the truth fake news? There were WMD found in Iraq, just not nuclear WMD.

Re:Don't you know?

[slashrio]

It was the 'mushroom cloud' that Rice didn't want to see over Manhattan, and the fake story about yellow cake, and indeed anthrax, by Colin Powell for the UN, that motivated the people to agree with the war.
The fact that Hussein allegedly had used chemical weapons already gave them the moral ecuse.